| Literature DB >> 31709189 |
Jochen Weitz1, Christophe Spaas1, Klaus-Dietrich Wolff1, Bernhard Meyer2, Ehab Shiban2,3, Lucas M Ritschl1.
Abstract
Reconstructions of complex scalp after ablative resection or by post-traumatic tissue loss, can present difficulties regarding recipient vessel selection, functional, and aesthetic outcome. The harvesting method for many microvascular free flaps requires a need for changing patients position during surgery and makes a simultaneous interdisciplinary two-team approach complicated, which is a major disadvantage regarding safety and operation time. The ideal flap for scalp reconstruction has yet to be described, although the microvascular latissimus dorsi flap is frequently referred to as the first choice in this context, especially after resection of large defects. The purpose of this study is to compare two different microvascular free flaps for a simultaneous scalp reconstruction in an interdisciplinary two-team approach applying a standardized algorithm. All consecutively operated complex scalp defects after ablative surgery from April 2017 until August 2018 were included in this retrospective study. The indications were divided into neoplasm or wound healing disorder. Two microvascular flaps (latissimus dorsi or parascapular flap) were used to cover the soft tissue component of the resulting defects. Seventeen patients met the inclusion criterion and were treated in an interdisciplinary two-team approach. Skull reconstruction with a CAD/CAM implant was performed in 10 cases of which four were in a secondary stage. Nine patients received a parascapular flap and eight patients were treated with latissimus dorsi flap with split thickness skin graft. Anastomosis was performed with no exception to the temporal vessels. One parascapular flap had venous insufficiency after 1 week followed by flap loss. One latissimus dorsi flap had necrosis of the serratus part of the flap. All other flaps healed uneventful and could be further treated with adjuvant therapy or CAD/CAM calvarial implants. Regarding overall complications, flap related complications, flap loss, and inpatient stay no statistical differences were seen between the diagnosis or type of reconstruction. The parascapular flap seems to be a good alternative for reconstruction of complex tumor defects of the scalp besides the latissimus dorsi flap. Stable long-term results and little donor site morbidity are enabled with good aesthetic outcomes and shorter operation time in an interdisciplinary two-team approach.Entities:
Keywords: CAD/CAM implant; microvascular free flap; scalp reconstruction; squamous cell carcinoma; temporal anastomosis
Year: 2019 PMID: 31709189 PMCID: PMC6823187 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2019.01130
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Characteristics of analyzed patients.
| 1 | M | 73 | Meningioma | ≤12 | Tempero-parietal left | Secondary phase | Parascapular flap | ST A/V left | None |
| 2 | M | 62 | Meningioma | ≤12 | Parietal left | Secondary phase | Parascapular flap | ST A/V left | None |
| 3 | M | 75 | SCC scalp | >12 | Fronto-temporal left | Secondary phase | Latissimus dorsi flap with STSG | ST A/V left | None |
| 4 | F | 53 | SAB | ≤12 | Temporal left | Titanium | Parascapular flap | ST A/V right | Conversion from left to right temporal vessels Postoperative dehiscence of the flap |
| 5 | M | 69 | Fibroxanthoma scalp | >12 | Occipito-parietal left | Secondary phase | Latissimus dorsi flap with STSG | ST A/V left | None |
| 6 | M | 28 | SAB | ≤12 | Tempero-parietal left | No skull reconstruction | Parascapular flap | ST A/V left | None |
| 7 | M | 61 | SCC scalp | >12 | Fronto-temporal right | PEEK | Latissimus dorsi flap with STSG | ST A/V right | None |
| 8 | M | 88 | SCC scalp | >12 | Capitulum | (Titanium mesh) | Latissimus dorsi flap and serratus anterior muscle with STSG | ST A/V left | Necrosis of serratus part of latissimus dorsi flap ALT flap for secondary reconstruction |
| 9 | F | 68 | SCC sinus frontalis | ≤12 | Fronto-temporal right | Titanium | Parascapular flap | ST A/V right | None |
| 10 | M | 57 | Glioblastoma | ≤12 | Temporal right | Titanium | Parascapular flap | ST A/V right | Necrosis of the flap Latissimus dorsi flap with STSG for secondary reconstruction |
| 11 | M | 68 | SCC scalp | >12 | Parieto-occipital left | No skull reconstruction | Latissimus dorsi flap with STSG | ST A/V left | Sepsis during recovery with dead of the patient |
| 12 | M | 77 | Melanoma scalp | ≤12 | Fronto-temporal right | No skull reconstruction | Parascapular flap | ST A/V right | Perioperative anaphylactic shock |
| 13 | M | 51 | Dermatofibrosarcoma scalp | >12 | Occipital left | No skull reconstruction | Latissimus dorsi flap with STSG | ST A/V left | Postoperative hematoma of the scalp |
| 14 | F | 54 | SAB | ≤12 | Tempero-parietal left | Titanium | Parascapular flap | ST A/V left | Dehiscence of the flap |
| 15 | F | 78 | SAB | ≤12 | Parietal left | Titanium | Parascapular flap | ST A/V left | Postoperative hematoma of the scalp |
| 16 | M | 29 | SAB | >12 | Fronto-temporal | Secondary phase | Latissimus dorsi flap with STSG | ST A/V left | None |
| 17 | M | 76 | SCC scalp | >12 | Occipito-parietal median | No skull reconstruction | Latissimus dorsi flap with STSG | ST A/V right | None |
SCC, spinocellular carcinoma; SAB, subarachnoid bleeding; F, Female; M, Male; STSG, split thickness skin graft; ALT, antero-lateral thigh flap; ST A/V, superficial temporal artery/vein.
Figure 1Example of a reconstruction in the fronto-temporal region using a free microvascular latissimus dorsi flap with meshed split thickness skin graft (STSG). (A) After interdisciplinary resection of the squamous cell carcinoma and duraplasty of the neurosurgeon. (B) Raised free microvascular latissimus dorsi flap in the right decubitus position. (C) Bony defect coverage with the patient and defect specific CAD/CAM PEEK-implant. (D) Soft tissue coverage with free microvascular latissimus dorsi flap and meshed STSG. (E–G) Eighteen months postoperative result. A written informed consent for the publication of the images was obtained from the patient.
Comparative descriptive and statistical analysis for both reconstruction types.
| Age median (range) | 62 (28–78) | 68.5 (29–88) | 0.665 |
| Diagnosis WHD (%) | 8 (88.9) | 2 (25.0) | 0.01 |
| Simul. skull reco. (%) | 6 (66.7) | 2 (25.0) | 0.096 |
| Operation time [min.] | 445 (300–673) | 432 (401–782) | 0.847 |
| Overall complications (%) | 5 (55.6) | 3 (37.5) | 0.47 |
| Flap related complications (%) | 4 (44.4) | 2 (25.0) | 0.693 |
| Total flap loss (%) | 1 (11.1) | 0 (0.0) | 0.346 |
| Inpatient stay [days] median (range) | 10 (6–44) | 11 (6–30) | 0.772 |
WHD, wound healing disorder; simul., simultaneous; reco., reconstruction.
Mann–Whitney-U-Test;
p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Comparative descriptive and statistical analysis for both indications (malignancy vs. wound healing disorder).
| Age median (range) | 75 (51–88) | 59.5 (28–28) | 0.13 |
| Flap type parascapular (%) | 1 (14.3) | 8 (80.0) | 0.01 |
| Simul. skull reco. (%) | 2 (28.6) | 6 (60.0) | 0.215 |
| Operation time [min.] | 430 (401–782) | 440 (300–673) | 0.626 |
| Overall complications (%) | 4 (57.1) | 4 (40.0) | 0.499 |
| Flap related complications (%) | 2 (28.6) | 4 (40.0) | 0.127 |
| Total flap loss (%) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (10.0) | 0.403 |
| Inpatient stay [days] median (range) | 10 (6–30) | 11.0 (6–44) | 0.845 |
WHD, wound healing disorder; simul., simultaneous; reco., reconstruction.
Mann–Whitney-U-Test;
p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Univariate logistic regression analyses for the overall incidence of complications and inpatient stay.
| Age | 0.496 | −0.011–0.023 | 0.479 | −0.221–0.449 |
| Gender | 0.225 | −0.981–0.25 | 0.985 | −12.882–12.651 |
| Diagnosis | 0.517 | −0.379–0.722 | 0.894 | −11.697–10.297 |
| Flap type | 0.488 | −0.722–0.361 | 0.881 | −11.619–10.063 |
| Operation time | 0.841 | −0.002–0.003 | 0.328 | −0.066–0.023 |
| Simultaneous skull reconstruction | 0.256 | −0.235–0.818 | 0.097 | −1.674–18.063 |
| Overall complications | / | / | 0.077 | −1.078–18.142 |
95%-CI, 95% confidence interval.
Figure 2Example of a reconstruction in the fronto-parietal region using a parascapular flap. (A) Intended resection margins of melanoma. (B) Donor site with marked triangular space. (C) Soft and hard tissue defect after interdisciplinary resection. (D) Prepared temporal vessels. (E) Defect reconstructed with parascapular flap from the ipsilateral side. (F) Donor site on the right back 1 year postoperative. A written informed consent for the publication of the images was obtained from the patient.
Figure 3Wound healing disorder after resection of a glioblastoma multiforme relapse in the right temporal region. (A) Wound situation and planning of the microvascular parascapular flap in the left decubitus position. (B) After debridement of the wound. (C) After insertion of the CAD/CAM titanium implant. (D) The microvascular parascapular flap with pedicle in the donor site. (E) Immediate reconstructive result after soft tissue closure. (F) donor site on the right back 1 year postoperative. A written informed consent for the publication of the images was obtained from the patient.
Figure 4Wound healing disorder after two times resection of a meningioma in the left temporo-parietal region. (A–C) Preoperative situation of the defect in frontal, side, and back view. (D) After microvascular anastomosis and de-epithelialization of the anterior part of the parascapular flap for soft tissue release and to reduce temporal hollowing. (E) After wound closure. (F–H) Clinical situation on the 7th postoperative day in frontal, side, and back view. A written informed consent for the publication of the images was obtained from the patient.
Figure 5Standardized reconstructive algorithm for scalp defects, that need a defect coverage with a microvascular free flap. STSG, split-thickness skin graft; AV-loop, arteriovenous loop.